list_users

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the admin requirement and the meaning of status values (active, pending, locked). It does not describe response structure or potential limitations, but the presence of an output schema partially mitigates that, and the behavior is straightforward for a list operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a note on privileges, and a formatted argument list. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition, and the key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has three simple parameters (all described), an output schema to cover return values, and no side effects (read-only list), the description covers all necessary context. The admin prerequisite is stated, making the tool's applicability clear in the broader Redmine API context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: status values, name partial matching behavior, and limit as a cap on the result count. This goes well beyond the bare schema definitions, adding critical meaning for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening line 'List Redmine users' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_groups or list_trackers. It also unambiguously states the tool's scope without restating the tool name tautologically.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly notes 'Requires administrator privileges,' which is a clear prerequisite and usage constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., get_user for single-user lookup), but the context is sufficiently clear for selecting this tool for bulk user listing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.